Thorner: What matters most in a Republican candidate” – Part 2

February 7, 2012

Thorner: What matters most in a Republican candidate? – Part 2

Thorner

In Part 1 posted yesterday, “A Tea Party conservative questions the GOP presidential candidate process,” expressed was my perception that the conservatism movement within the Republican Party (also espoused by many Tea Party members) was being steamrolled over by the Republican Establishment.

As was pointed out in a comment made by John F. DiLeo to my article when posted at Illinois Review, who did agree with most of what I wrote in Part 1, DiLeo wrote that “This cannot be a race between the establishment and the tea party movement, because there is no real tea party candidate running.”

I agree with John DiLeo. What I was trying to convey in Part 1 is the present tug of war between conservative Republicans, whether Tea Party members of not, and Establishment Republicans over control of the Republican Party.  As such the Republican Establishment, of which Romney qualifies given his true mind set, has set about to marginalize and discredit other Republican candidates, who are at least perceived by many conservatives as being more conservative than Mitt Romney, in an attempt to keep control of the Republican Party in the hands of moderate Republicans who are the establishment.

Part 2:  What matters most in a Republican candidate?”

To me the mindset of an individual is most important.  Mindsets are part and parcel of what makes up an individuals thought process, what we really believe, if we are being honest and truthful with ourselves and others.

As a conservative first and foremost, I remain suspicious of Romney’s mindset because of endorsements by Establishment Republicans John McCain and Bob Dole (“Birds of the feather stick together”).  McCain and Dole must perceive what conservatives already suspect about Romney, that his mindset is not one of a conservative regardless of how often Romney touts his conservatism credentials.

As a stark reminder, attention must be directed to how well McCain and Dole did in prior presidential years when confronted with the well-oiled and heavily financed Democrat machines that advanced and succeeded in electing Bill Clinton in 1996 and Barack Obama in 2008, over Dole and McCain, respectively, abet with the unabashed support of the liberal media’s spin machine.

Most telling is that Romney’s thin veneer of conservatism cracked only one day after his double digit win in Florida, at which time Romney gave the media an opening by sticking his foot in his mouth when announcing to conservatives that he was incapable of articulating conservatism.

Romney told CNN’s Soledad O’Brien in an interview the morning after beating his rival Newt Gingrich, “I’m in this race because I care about Americans.  I’m not concerned about the very poor.  We have a safety net there.  If it needs a repair, I’ll fix it.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/mitt-romney-i-m-concerned-poor-article-1.1015303#ixzz1lGZL92qu  

Not unexpectedly, Romney’s unfortunate statement was interpreted by the media as an extension of the stereotype many have of Romney as a rich fat-cat Republican who really has no clue about what it is like to be poor because he never was.

For conservatives the idea of a safety net is a liberal idea.  Safety nets do not represent jobs.  Certainly minimum wage increases are not incentives that grant employers a green light to hire more workers, which brings up a point of concern already expressed:  Is Romney capable of articulating conservative principle  – to explain, inform, and teach — when his mindset is not one of a true and tested conservative?

Thomas Sowell, in so many words, interprets the minimum wage acts as a Black Unemployment Act in that it taxes small businesses, which, in turn, restrict hiring.  http://www.amatecon.com/etext/mwe/mwe.html

Another possible Mitt Romney negative for me is his Tax Plan, which demands more scrutiny as Romney seeks to cement his front runner status as the Republican presidential candidate.  According to an article by Roberton Williams, guest blogger at the Christian Science Monitor. .

“Romney’s tax plan plan is not for the middle class.   In fact, high-income households would win big and poor families would actually fare worse.”

The five main components of Romney’s tax plan shared by Mr. Williams in order of size can be be read at the following link:       http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Tax-VOX/2012/0131/Romney-s-tax-plan-really-does-favor-the-rich  

Deroy Murdock likewise commented on Gingrich’s tax plan in his article, Gingrich Trumps Romney on Tax Plan.  According to Murdock, Newt’s 15% flat tax proposal is “2012′s smartest idea yet both strategically and substantively. . .  And, if implemented, Gingrich’s plan would reinvigorate America’s feeble economy.”  http://www.scrippsnews.com/content/murdock-tax-plans-gingrich-trumps-romney

Murdock is a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.

Also wrote Murdock, “Gingrich tax plan would likewise chop America’s corporate tax from 25% (the industrial world’s second highest, after Japan’s) to a flat 12.5 percent, which would tie Ireland’s as the lowest and most competitive among developed nations.”

Murdock goes on to make this distinction between the tax plans of Newt and Romney:

“Compared to Gingrich’s gusty blueprint, Romney’s exhibits the caution that has made the former Massachusetts governor the “oh, well, if we must” choice even among his supporters.  
Republican primary voters now face mixed messengers:  Gingrich possesses a luggage carousel worth of personal baggage, visionary tax plan and the courage of Godzilla.  Romney presents a mere tote bag of quirks, a tepid tax proposal and the bravery of a hummingbird.”

The above Murdock’s quote leads directly into what is my final concern about Mitt Romney as the Republican presidential candidate, who unquestionably was openly supported and promoted by the Republican Establishment from the get go as the next-in-line candidate.  It is now Romney’s time — not unlike Dole and McCain in prior elections — to rise like cream to the top of a milk bottle before the pasteurization of milk by virtue of his campaign experience, even though Romney lost the top spot to John McCain in 2008.  In actuality, Romney never stopped running for president since 2008.

Does Mitt Romney have the guts to go against President Obama with the same hard-hitting, go-for-the throat, and take-no-prisoners attacks as he directed against Newt Gingrich?

Recently Romney has become much more aggressive in debate sessions.  Even so, I have my doubts that Romney’s toughness will prevail when he goes up against Obama, whose attack against Romney will make Romney’s Primary Elections attacks against Newt appear as child’s play.

The Republican Establishment is famous for informing candidates to hold their fire against President Obama because Obama is liked by the American people as a person.  Furthermore, playing the part of a statesman will win over independents and will additionally persuade the Obama re-election machine to go easy on Mitt.

The Republican Establishment is quite naive in its thinking.  Its advise represents a recipe for failure, not success.  The Obama machine will throw twice as many punches against Romney as Republicans are able to deliver against President Obama.

Newt Gingrich, in contrast to Romney, represents a big, fierce dog who isn’t afraid to debate the status quo or to aggressively hit back in kind to counter what will be President Obama’s massive re-election mud-slinging apparatus, with his own knock-out punches to sever the heart of Obama’s perverted and dangerous ideology.

Despite all my expressed misgivings, am I willing to just sit by and do nothing while engaging in hand wringing and a defeatist attitude, both of which are non-productive and will only lead to that which I fear most, the re-election of Barack Obama to his second term in office.  If this becomes reality the sky will be the limit, unimpeded as Obama will be during his second and final term, set by the Constitution, to further install his Marxist and socialist views as the leftist-most president every elected.  My answer is an emphatic no!

I plan to do my part, as all conservatives must do, caring as we do about the precarious, over-the-cliff direction Obama has taken this nation during his first term in office in ways not unlike the countries our ancestors escaped from in order to find a life where liberty and freedom prevailed, and where it was possible for an individual to succeed through hard work.

So far the elections and caucuses in Iowa, South Carolina, Florida and Nevada drew fewer voters to the polls than in 2008.  Hopefully this lack of interest and enthusiasm is not the precursor of election turnout for Republicans in the November General Elections.

As expressed by a sticker affixed inside my car, OTP (One Term President), conservatives must rally around the Republican candidate whoever that may be.  Not to do so would insure an Obama victory.  In its wake the American people lose the quality of life as they now know it, leaving to future generations a failed and debt-ridden nation no longer proud, prosperous or secure.

Thomas Jefferson, in his First Inaugural Address, enumerated what he called “the essential principles of our government which ought to shape its  administration.”  He then stated:

“These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation.  The wisdom of our sages and blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment.  They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civil instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety.”  

When asked by a curious citizen after the adjournment of the Constitutional Convention what kind of government had been structured by the Founding Fathers, Benjamin Franklin is said to have answer:

 “A REPUBLIC IF YOU CAN KEEP IT.”     http://nccs.net/articles/ril71.cursory

 It is not just idle talk that the November elections are sink or swim time for this nation.  Anyone but Obama must be the battle cry!  Candidate Rick Santorum certainly deserves more than just a cursory look by those of us who seek conservatism in a candidate in his professed claim that he represents the only geniune conservative in the race

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s